Lol I just sold out the american people's privacy data for $700,000 lol

lol I just sold out the american people's privacy data for $700,000 lol

Other urls found in this thread:

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_SOUTH_CHINA_SEA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-28-01-02-39
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Nobody here cares.

Stop trying to pull people to the left because

>muh Internet

>muh targeted ads
>its like the 6 million all over again
Guess what
Nobody gives a shit

lol

lol
upboaded XD

>NSA scandal shows that government is spying on you
>"lol nothing is wrong"
>ISP doing what ISP's have always been doing since the creation of ISP's
>"I CARE ABOUT THE INTERNET"

ISP's has been selling your data for a while, your jumping on the privacy debate years late.

This

Libtards are just mad that American uncucked themselves.

>WAAH Evil trump doesnt believe in climate change
>SCIENTIST(paid ones by deepstate) say its true!!!
>WAAH TRUMP opposes vaccines that SCIENTIST (paid again by deepstate) endorse
>WAAH Trump wants coal back instead of dangerous and cancer inducting nuclear power

Libs just always fearmonger for votes, its always likes this. They refer to authority(researches, well known public figures etc) but never back their claims with actual proof. Feels over reals, Im glad it didnt work this time though

do you not see a difference between government level and corporate level privacy concerns?

see this? This is actual shilling, paid for by actual companies.

Yes
The Government is far worse

Nice.

What are you thinking of spending it on?

You are a shill for the Feds and the Deep State

What happened that OP is talking about it corporate privacy, and is pretending like it is similar to government privacy. concerns

>6 million
It was 10 trillion bad goyim

And you're a shill for some goddamn ISP providers, at least my fake shill status is cooler than your actual day to day shilling.

>shill status is cooler t
What is cool about the deep state faggot?
I am a shill for the tenth amendment

Your next employer now knows you visit Sup Forums, doesnt hire you or fires you for being a Nazi.

Next time you look up that STD information they will also cut your benefits for irresponsible behavior or some other transparent excuse.

Also, your porn preferences are now known to any business who can afford to buy some data set.

Good luck with your plutocracy, USA.

>DUDE THE INTERNET IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SAFETY OF MY FAMILY AND MY COUNTRY LMAO

>What is cool about the deep state faggot?

well you always get a deepstate, they mention a deepstate like organization sitting behind emperors of China 5K years ago, same in Egypt,

it's part of human nature

our goal should be encouraging deepstate thinking to be more beneficial to humanity as a whole, really those who believe they are slaveowners should value the condition of their slaves more

is what I'm saying

>Your next employer now knows you visit Sup Forums, doesnt hire you or fires you for being a Nazi
Doesn't happen until the person gets Doxxed and the company gets calls claiming that they will get sued if the person is sacked.

Do you have any evidence ISPs are selling individual user browsing history?
This shit is almost as bad as your stupid net neutrality internet packages infographic

how on fucking earth is supporting a bill that allows all our online data being sold in any way relating to the 10th amendment?

And how on earth is protesting this moronic breach of privacy somehow supporting deep state? How would that benefit them in *any way*?

> 10 trillion
> Implying its not 100 trillion
why so antisemitic Australia?

Fuck off T/RIDF

>beneficial to humanity as a whole
fucking disgusting
kys you globalist shill
America first

well what day does this go into effect? that data has already been traded for a long time but this is a wake up call to normies that we are ready for internet 2.0 via mesh networking

no ads, low bandwidth, like Sup Forums run using each device as a network sharing server

privately owned by users is possible now, this gives encouragement to make it real

go do it

all you need is to write an OS

Feds have no authority to regulate local ISPs

Let me guess it was the republicans?

>America first

yes but if we ignore global wide threats there will be no America, doesn't mean America has to pay for it, but we should participate and force others to donate their fair share, I though that was trump's message?

>Do you have any evidence ISPs are selling individual user browsing history?

That's literally what the new law allows them to do.

...

You mean we returned to the same system we had in 2015.

this is all the vote did.

If you give up privacy, you do not gain security.

>global wide threats
They are only a threat to globalism
Not to us directly
Putin can send the tanks into Berlin and hang Merkel for all I care
But they are not
Solution in search of a problem
Typical marxist tactic

Its not right or left it's the cia and nsa. Obama and Bush had the same policy when it came to FISA

so if we allowed all mail carriers to open, read, and sell the contents of our mail you'd be into that?

Should we just allow any company that sells us anything to come and record and sell all our information?

Do you *really* not think that some amount of privacy should be protected, or is that idea totally worthless to you?

Corporate shill. Wanting to protect people's privacy most definitely is not left or right issue. But (((some people))) who wish to make a few shekels in any way they can would sure love to frame it that way.

I think we can all finally agree that Trump isn't really living up to the hype.

I'm not saying he can't still do good things but he needs to stop sabatoging himself. Why can't anyone get him to stop using Twitter?

ISPs are local access to the internet
They are not commerce between the states

>new law

It's not a new law.
It's removing an old law that Obama passed in 2015 giving ISPs common carrier status.

Before 2015, ISPs were regulated by the FTC.
After, they were regulated by the FCC.

We're going back to the 2014 days of internet.

Look money get the money.

ISPs selling personal data to marketers is a relatively benign threat compared to what the NSA is doing with it.

Anything that redpills more people into using VPNs, encryption, and other tools is a good thing.

You're retarded. Anyone posting to Sup Forums who doesn't value internet privacy is a shill or a fucking moron. You will be found out and blacklisted by the kikes the first chance they get. They will use this power to oppress Christians and other decent people not under their thumbs.

>people will defend this because Republicans voted for it

the mental hoops people are jumping through in order to support this is fucking pathetic. There was zero reason to do this. Justifying it by saying it's already been done by govt is retarded, it's still pushing things further and further along. You normalize this then what's next?

Laughing because it pisses leftists off will only get you so far, and I'm actually disgusted the votes fell so neatly along party lines.

This is just bringing the inevitable slaughter of congress and spooks closer. A good thing desu, not in their favor. They gain our porn caches, but in exchange also gain the hatred of every citizen. As if their kid fucking and child torturing wasn't enough.

I give it 20 years before cia agents are burned alive in their home along with their kids.

>so if we allowed all mail carriers to open, read, and sell the contents of our mail you'd be into that?
No since the post office was basically given a government sanctioned monopoly
>Do you *really* not think that some amount of privacy should be protected, or is that idea totally worthless to you?
If it actually becomes a problem let the states regulate ISPs

You fool. Pennies would've been sufficient. Plus they don't burn so you can reuse them when you reset the trap.

>But they are not

Yeah sure, they intentionally lobbied congress to give them the power to do this but that doesn't mean they're actually planning to do it.

>It's not a new law.

Yes, actually it is. A new law that undoes part of an older law is a still a new law.

shills worried about this because it gives more power to FTC and they will indict their asses for fraud. get fucked sharia blue

so basically let the wolves into the barn, and then worry about it if it becomes a problem?

Fucking. Brilliant.

>implying this wasn´t happening regardless of government

at least they aren´t taking your guns at the same time. Stop being so dumb, it hurts my soul to know that leftists exist that actually believe their tripe.

>shilling as a butthurt trumptard
wew. what a life

>Yeah sure, they intentionally lobbied congress to give them the power to do this but that doesn't mean they're actually planning to do it.
because they are planning to sell bulk data for targeted ads

wolves in the barn is a problem
this has yet to be show to be one

Ted Koppel said it best, people like Fox News and Hannity created a political movement wherein ideology trumps facts. They really don't care how bad the republicans are fucking things up, because they are all about ideological purity as opposed to protecting our constitutional rights.

Now don't think I'm saying you must vote democrat forever because of this, but you should at least look at the reasons behind this vote and the consequences that will follow before you decide who to vote for. If you're going to vote for these corporate shills regardless of facts, you're too far gone already.

>Not to us directly

wigner effect is real and we're already seeing the destruction caused by shortsighted design and failure to complete maintenance, we're watching celebrities and certain others get sick with major health issues at a rate not yet seen in recorded history

the wigner effect is real, very soon we will be seeing celebrities dying from this daily, will we accept that there is no problem even though many high profile science spokesmen who are friendly with Trump speak out only to later be silenced or paid off?

if we don't choose to act we will suffer as a whole, China has already made steps towards preserving their culture through their Island city project

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_SOUTH_CHINA_SEA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-28-01-02-39

A report from a U.S. think tank says China has nearly completed construction work on three man-made islands in the South China Sea, giving it the ability to deploy combat aircraft and other military assets to the disputed region whenever it wishes.

So you admit that this is purely for advertising. It does not benefit the public.

Now that's a true Jew always saving those shekels , get in.

Trump will not sign that bill.

>very soon we will be seeing celebrities dying from this daily
good
What does this have to do with our tax dollars protecting the EU

>No since the post office was basically given a government sanctioned monopoly

yes but they need a court order to access your mail (and be able to use it in court)

the communications on the internet deserve the same constitutional protections

how did privacy translate to wire services in the 1800s?

I have a great investment opportunity for you, ever hear of the Brooklyn bridge? Send me your banking account information and it's yours!

Anybody actually concerned about this would start start using a vpn or tor for their daily browsing. Shit, if you really want to get around it, install tails and use tor, your internet will be shit slow, nothing will work well but at least you'll be sticking it to the man.

Before the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was the primary regulator of companies' privacy and data security practices. The FTC had the authority to bring enforcement actions against companies who engaged in "unfair and deceptive practices." The 2015 reclassification of broadband providers removed internet service providers (ISPs) from the FTC's jurisdiction. On April 20, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed a rule applying privacy requirements of the Communications Act to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). However, the proposed rule would not apply to edge providers and web sites, like Facebook and Twitter, since they still fall under the FTC's authority.
As you know, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona introduced S.J. Res. 34 on March 7, 2017. This resolution would repeal the FCC's privacy rules. I do not believe a two-track system in which the FCC regulates ISPs while the FTC monitors the rest of the internet ecosystem is good for consumers. For this reason I cosponsored S.J. Res 34.

>So you admit that this is purely for advertising.
yes
> It does not benefit the public.
rolling back federal authority is a benefit to the public
they are our real enemy

you are a moron if you think he's going to stop it.

>because they are planning to sell bulk data for targeted ads

or to send drones to assassinate the cellphone GPS signal targets of every person who bought Mein Kampf, or Marx

either way it's a stupid fucking idea to allow that, we need to replace amazon, amazon makes all it's money selling this kind of data, google also

I browse pol on my phone a lot what should I do to protect the government from finding out my political views?

Destroying internet privacy does not benefit the public.

What does that have to do with anything?
Stop doing drugs
>the communications on the internet deserve the same constitutional protections
This doesn't have anything to do with the government accessing private data

Smash your phone on a rock

>yfw this was all set up so Trump can veto the unpopular bill and gain a massive surge in support

Good thing its not desrroying privacy

Apps and software were already allowed to do it. Whats the difference if your ISP (which you can opt out of) beats facebook to the sale.

>ISPs selling personal data to marketers is a relatively benign threat compared to what the NSA is doing with it.

t. terrorist sympathizer

>or to send drones to assassinate the cellphone GPS signal targets of every person who bought Mein Kampf, or Marx
who?
Please tell me why states cant regulate ISPs if this becomes a problem

>What does this have to do with our tax dollars protecting the EU

fuck the EU, our tax dollars should not be spent protecting other nations unless under openly agreed contract, as in the public is aware of the deal, I would approve a move closer to the Prussian military model where soldiers bid for a portion of the prize on military actions they participate in, if you're protecting a opium crop worth 258 million you should be able to barter on your wage or choose to not take the mission, it's a much better way to run your military

I for instance would defend the homeland for free, only supplies if available, however I would want a much higher rate of pay for any service where I am protecting drug profits

thats just how I see it

If he truly is a nth dimensional underwater basket weaving grand master, he would not sign it. The part of this nobody seems to get is that now that the ISP's CAN sell it for advertising, anyone wanting to "advertise" will be able to buy it. What's to stop a foreign government or a political party from buying up this data to find dirt on their opponents? What's to stop a company from using this data in a way that would give them an advantage over their competitors. See what everyone is focusing on is the privacy or advertising aspects, and not how this can be used tactically. Or maybe that's just my autism talking.

>Yes, actually it is. A new law that undoes part of an older law is a still a new law.

The end result will be a return to pre-2015 internet.
This means more competition.

Of course

Terrorists are not a threat to us
They are useful for destabilizing muslim nations
You want to protect against domestic attacks just dont let them in the country

First, explain why weakening the law is beneficial for the public.

Weakening privacy laws does not increase competition. The public does not benefit from this.

oh no the ISPs can sell my browsing history

this isn't anything new that's going on now, fuckwits. jesus. it's not like they are going to sell your personal info (which companies can probably get someone else *cough* social media *cough* easier)

listen facebook is owned by IBM, microsoft is owned by dupont/dow

didn't IBM build a supercomputer to determine who would get sent to the death camps during WWII?

I mean I read that in a book someplace, others have confirmed it,

you want that company having the ability to make lists of people and know exactly where they are at all times?

because it part of the slow process of rolling back the commerce clause overreach
federal employees will lose their jobs over this

>Weakening privacy laws

well I don't agree with this line of discussion, you can't weaken privacy laws, your privacy is protected by god as outlined in the bill of rights,

you can however volunteer your privacy under contract and I would agree that allowing companies to do this is a very bad idea and I don't really see how this could ever be technically legal

not on constitutional ground anyway,

I think we just need to get rid of maritime law in general, I don't see what the people are getting out of it

if you give up money, you don't gain goods.

>stealing bad plots from Watch Dogs 2

>implying you have to be an isp to do that
you can pull banking info out of deanonimized data sets. yes, people are that stupid. they click on everything and never delete their cookies.

Facebook isn't an ISP, and they're already doing that shit. They already have your location if you're carrying a smartphone, and they've got a rough idea if you've got a dumbphone. This is absolutely nothing new.

Philosophically, I see nothing wrong with this. There are ways to combat this kind of data gathering. Run Tails, use Tor as your browser, spoof your MAC address, block any and all scripts from running, but the list of steps needed is getting longer and longer.

>Stop trying to pull people to the left
Privacy is more a concern of right-wingers, though.
Just look at commies - they want to actively be spied on by their government.

Privacy laws have not been weakend. ISP's will just be under the jurisdiction of the FTC when trump signs in the law

Then why haven't I gotten my precious metals and diamonds from giving all my money to nigerian princes?

and yet Facebook and google are not selling background checks because one there is no real market for it and two nobody would use their products anymore

How does that benefit me, or the general public? It doesn't.

he'll sign it, this is an example of a good bill with bad implications on the surface. ultimately though this should be done and the FTC should make their own privacy rules or a new law should be put in place to stop it.

You fucking idiot stuck on party lines. This hurts us. The fucking Neo Cons in Congress hurt us.

You can still support Trump and have a fucking opinion.

There are plenty of things I am against trump on
This is not one of them

Exactly. The only problem with social media is when someone gets buttmad over words they read on a screen and decides to doxx you. Like I said, if someone is REALLY concerned with their privacy, they can take steps to anonymize their browsing and habits.